dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1152 bytes --]

Hi Yuri,

The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 

For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410

I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.

Cheers

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Yuri Weinstein]

Loic,

The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.

Unless I hear otherwise, I will schedule suites to run on dumpling-backports first (as you are suggesting, with higher priority) and then assuming that we resolved all issues, we will run on the dumpling merged. 

Sage, pls correct if this is not what has to be done.


Thx
YuriW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

Hi Yuri,

The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 

For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410

I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.

Cheers

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2127 bytes --]



On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:> 
> Loic,
> 
> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.

Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.

> 
> Unless I hear otherwise, I will schedule suites to run on dumpling-backports first (as you are suggesting, with higher priority) and then assuming that we resolved all issues, we will run on the dumpling merged. 
> 
> Sage, pls correct if this is not what has to be done.
> 
> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> Hi Yuri,
> 
> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
> 
> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
> 
> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
> 
> Cheers
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Yuri Weinstein]

On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:> 
> Loic,
> 
> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.

Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.

Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge.  I do see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if you insist.  Does my reasoning make sense?  Please advice, how we should proceed.


> 
> Unless I hear otherwise, I will schedule suites to run on dumpling-backports first (as you are suggesting, with higher priority) and then assuming that we resolved all issues, we will run on the dumpling merged. 
> 
> Sage, pls correct if this is not what has to be done.
> 
> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> Hi Yuri,
> 
> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
> 
> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
> 
> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
> 
> Cheers
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5160 bytes --]



On 10/02/2015 18:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote:> 
> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:> 
>> Loic,
>>
>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.
> 
> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.
> 
> Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge.  I do see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if you insist.  Does my reasoning make sense?  Please advice, how we should proceed.

The dumpling-backports branch currently is at 

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410

after a successful test run from QE and a merge into dumpling, the dumpling branch will be at

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410

as well. In other words they are identical and there is no point in running a test again. The only reason why they could be different is if a commit is inadvertently added to the dumpling branch while testing happens on the dumpling-backport branc. In this case the presence of this new commit would be reason enough to run another round of test indeed. So the process could be:

If tests are ok and merge can fast forward, then release.
If tests are ok and merge cannot fast forward, send back to loic because a commit was added by accident and needs to be approved by the leads. 

If testing happens on the dumpling branch, adding a commit to the dumpling branch would have side effects that could taint the results of the tests or, even worse, go unnoticed. There is zero chance that someone adds a commit to the dumpling-backports branch and that gives us something stable. On the contrary, the odds that someone adds a commit to the dumpling branch are high, specially if the tests take a few weeks to complete. 

As Greg mentioned, merging in dumpling does not matter much for this round because it is what has been done in the past. And to be honest, I would not mind if an additional commit taints the process by accident. However, unless there is a reason not to, it would be good to establish a process that is solid if we can. 

I've witnessed Alfredo's pain on each release and an additional benefit of having a dumpling-backports branch that nobody tampers with just occured to me. When and if QE finds that dumpling-backports is fit for release, instead of merging it into dumpling it could be handed over to Alfredo for release. And he would be able to proceed knowing it is stable and won't be moving forward. Once the release is done and the tag set to the proper commit, the dumpling branch can be reset to dumpling-backports. If commits were added during the process, their authors could be notified that they were discarded and need to be merge again. That would not work for the master branch but it would definitely be possible for the stable branches because such "out of process" commits are rarely added.

I've not thought this through, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea of using dumpling-backports as a staging area until the release is final.

What do you think ? 

> 
>>
>> Unless I hear otherwise, I will schedule suites to run on dumpling-backports first (as you are suggesting, with higher priority) and then assuming that we resolved all issues, we will run on the dumpling merged. 
>>
>> Sage, pls correct if this is not what has to be done.
>>
>>
>> Thx
>> YuriW
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
>> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
>> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>>
>> Hi Yuri,
>>
>> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
>>
>> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>
>> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Gregory Farnum]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/02/2015 18:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>> Loic,
>>>
>>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
>>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.
>>
>> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.
>>
>> Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge.  I do see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if you insist.  Does my reasoning make sense?  Please advice, how we should proceed.
>
> The dumpling-backports branch currently is at
>
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>
> after a successful test run from QE and a merge into dumpling, the dumpling branch will be at
>
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>
> as well. In other words they are identical and there is no point in running a test again. The only reason why they could be different is if a commit is inadvertently added to the dumpling branch while testing happens on the dumpling-backport branc. In this case the presence of this new commit would be reason enough to run another round of test indeed. So the process could be:
>
> If tests are ok and merge can fast forward, then release.
> If tests are ok and merge cannot fast forward, send back to loic because a commit was added by accident and needs to be approved by the leads.
>
> If testing happens on the dumpling branch, adding a commit to the dumpling branch would have side effects that could taint the results of the tests or, even worse, go unnoticed. There is zero chance that someone adds a commit to the dumpling-backports branch and that gives us something stable. On the contrary, the odds that someone adds a commit to the dumpling branch are high, specially if the tests take a few weeks to complete.
>
> As Greg mentioned, merging in dumpling does not matter much for this round because it is what has been done in the past. And to be honest, I would not mind if an additional commit taints the process by accident. However, unless there is a reason not to, it would be good to establish a process that is solid if we can.
>
> I've witnessed Alfredo's pain on each release and an additional benefit of having a dumpling-backports branch that nobody tampers with just occured to me. When and if QE finds that dumpling-backports is fit for release, instead of merging it into dumpling it could be handed over to Alfredo for release. And he would be able to proceed knowing it is stable and won't be moving forward. Once the release is done and the tag set to the proper commit, the dumpling branch can be reset to dumpling-backports. If commits were added during the process, their authors could be notified that they were discarded and need to be merge again. That would not work for the master branch but it would definitely be possible for the stable branches because such "out of process" commits are rarely added.
>
> I've not thought this through, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea of using dumpling-backports as a staging area until the release is final.

What's the purpose of even having a dumpling branch at that point?
We're not using it for anything under your model.

Now, as it happens there are some reasons to maintain a dumpling
branch that isn't part of backports. We've been doing a lot of work
lately to make the nightlies behave well under RHEL and in various
other environments, which sometimes involve changing the tests
themselves. That can mean updating the ceph.git/qa/workunits in our
LTS branches, which I've done a few times over the last couple of
months. Since they're used for testing they aren't suitable for going
through a backports workflow, we just want them to get into the
nightlies as fast as possible. Tossing out any such work every time a
point release appears would be irritating, to say the least.
(We could also pull the workunits out of ceph.git, but that's a
different discussion.)
-Greg

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5042 bytes --]



On 10/02/2015 19:25, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/02/2015 18:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>>> Loic,
>>>>
>>>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
>>>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.
>>>
>>> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.
>>>
>>> Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge.  I do see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if you insist.  Does my reasoning make sense?  Please advice, how we should proceed.
>>
>> The dumpling-backports branch currently is at
>>
>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>
>> after a successful test run from QE and a merge into dumpling, the dumpling branch will be at
>>
>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>
>> as well. In other words they are identical and there is no point in running a test again. The only reason why they could be different is if a commit is inadvertently added to the dumpling branch while testing happens on the dumpling-backport branc. In this case the presence of this new commit would be reason enough to run another round of test indeed. So the process could be:
>>
>> If tests are ok and merge can fast forward, then release.
>> If tests are ok and merge cannot fast forward, send back to loic because a commit was added by accident and needs to be approved by the leads.
>>
>> If testing happens on the dumpling branch, adding a commit to the dumpling branch would have side effects that could taint the results of the tests or, even worse, go unnoticed. There is zero chance that someone adds a commit to the dumpling-backports branch and that gives us something stable. On the contrary, the odds that someone adds a commit to the dumpling branch are high, specially if the tests take a few weeks to complete.
>>
>> As Greg mentioned, merging in dumpling does not matter much for this round because it is what has been done in the past. And to be honest, I would not mind if an additional commit taints the process by accident. However, unless there is a reason not to, it would be good to establish a process that is solid if we can.
>>
>> I've witnessed Alfredo's pain on each release and an additional benefit of having a dumpling-backports branch that nobody tampers with just occured to me. When and if QE finds that dumpling-backports is fit for release, instead of merging it into dumpling it could be handed over to Alfredo for release. And he would be able to proceed knowing it is stable and won't be moving forward. Once the release is done and the tag set to the proper commit, the dumpling branch can be reset to dumpling-backports. If commits were added during the process, their authors could be notified that they were discarded and need to be merge again. That would not work for the master branch but it would definitely be possible for the stable branches because such "out of process" commits are rarely added.
>>
>> I've not thought this through, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea of using dumpling-backports as a staging area until the release is final.
> 
> What's the purpose of even having a dumpling branch at that point?
> We're not using it for anything under your model.

The dumpling branch is where the point release are published. The dumpling-backports branch is where the point release are developed and tested.

> 
> Now, as it happens there are some reasons to maintain a dumpling
> branch that isn't part of backports. We've been doing a lot of work
> lately to make the nightlies behave well under RHEL and in various
> other environments, which sometimes involve changing the tests
> themselves. That can mean updating the ceph.git/qa/workunits in our
> LTS branches, which I've done a few times over the last couple of
> months. Since they're used for testing they aren't suitable for going
> through a backports workflow, we just want them to get into the
> nightlies as fast as possible. Tossing out any such work every time a
> point release appears would be irritating, to say the least.
> (We could also pull the workunits out of ceph.git, but that's a
> different discussion.)

This is a good point. I'm assuming backports rely on the dumpling branch of ceph-qa-suite. And if a change needs to be done in ceph-qa-suite for the benefit of an ongoing backport effort to publish a point release, it will have to be done in such a way that it can work for both the current dumpling and the future point release.

Am I understanding you correctly ? 

Cheers


> -Greg
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Gregory Farnum]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/02/2015 19:25, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>
>> Now, as it happens there are some reasons to maintain a dumpling
>> branch that isn't part of backports. We've been doing a lot of work
>> lately to make the nightlies behave well under RHEL and in various
>> other environments, which sometimes involve changing the tests
>> themselves. That can mean updating the ceph.git/qa/workunits in our
>> LTS branches, which I've done a few times over the last couple of
>> months. Since they're used for testing they aren't suitable for going
>> through a backports workflow, we just want them to get into the
>> nightlies as fast as possible. Tossing out any such work every time a
>> point release appears would be irritating, to say the least.
>> (We could also pull the workunits out of ceph.git, but that's a
>> different discussion.)
>
> This is a good point. I'm assuming backports rely on the dumpling branch of ceph-qa-suite. And if a change needs to be done in ceph-qa-suite for the benefit of an ongoing backport effort to publish a point release, it will have to be done in such a way that it can work for both the current dumpling and the future point release.
>
> Am I understanding you correctly ?

No, I mean we are (unfortunately) actually changing the ceph.git
dumpling branch in order to update the tests we run so they succeed in
new environments. Those changes aren't going through backports
testing, because we want to verify that they're working in our regular
nightlies ASAP and don't want to wait for the backports branch to
merge for them to take effect in giving us successful tests. Look
at...wow, pick a commit on the first screen of the current dumpling
branch.

Also, as Sage mentions we actually run the dumpling branch in the
nightlies and using that as integration testing. I think it's
appropriate to keep doing so; otherwise we need to run every patch
through every suite *enough times to be sure we've not added a bug
that's hard to reproduce*. If we use dumpling as an integration branch
for backports that can be tested en-masse but independently we get a
lot more test coverage of them prior to releases.
-Greg

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Sage Weil]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/02/2015 18:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
> >> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
> >>> Loic,
> >>>
> >>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
> >>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.
> >>
> >> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.
> >>
> >> Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge.  I do see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if you insist.  Does my reasoning make sense?  Please advice, how we should proceed.
> >
> > The dumpling-backports branch currently is at
> >
> > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
> >
> > after a successful test run from QE and a merge into dumpling, the dumpling branch will be at
> >
> > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
> >
> > as well. In other words they are identical and there is no point in running a test again. The only reason why they could be different is if a commit is inadvertently added to the dumpling branch while testing happens on the dumpling-backport branc. In this case the presence of this new commit would be reason enough to run another round of test indeed. So the process could be:
> >
> > If tests are ok and merge can fast forward, then release.
> > If tests are ok and merge cannot fast forward, send back to loic because a commit was added by accident and needs to be approved by the leads.
> >
> > If testing happens on the dumpling branch, adding a commit to the dumpling branch would have side effects that could taint the results of the tests or, even worse, go unnoticed. There is zero chance that someone adds a commit to the dumpling-backports branch and that gives us something stable. On the contrary, the odds that someone adds a commit to the dumpling branch are high, specially if the tests take a few weeks to complete.
> >
> > As Greg mentioned, merging in dumpling does not matter much for this round because it is what has been done in the past. And to be honest, I would not mind if an additional commit taints the process by accident. However, unless there is a reason not to, it would be good to establish a process that is solid if we can.
> >
> > I've witnessed Alfredo's pain on each release and an additional benefit of having a dumpling-backports branch that nobody tampers with just occured to me. When and if QE finds that dumpling-backports is fit for release, instead of merging it into dumpling it could be handed over to Alfredo for release. And he would be able to proceed knowing it is stable and won't be moving forward. Once the release is done and the tag set to the proper commit, the dumpling branch can be reset to dumpling-backports. If commits were added during the process, their authors could be notified that they were discarded and need to be merge again. That would not work for the master branch but it would definitely be possible for the stable branches because such "out of process" commits are rarely added.
> >
> > I've not thought this through, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea of using dumpling-backports as a staging area until the release is final.
> 
> What's the purpose of even having a dumpling branch at that point?
> We're not using it for anything under your model.

Yeah, it seems to me like the same general process we use for 'next' and 
'master' would work here:

 - prepare a batch of backports, say dumpling-rgw-next
 - run it through the rgw suite
 - if that is okay, merge to dumpling
 - run regular tests on dumpling (all suites)

so that dumpling acts as in integration branch the same way the others do.   
This is reasonably lightweight on process and means that our periodic 
scheduled runs are doing double duty for the integration testing and 
catching long-tail bugs.

After talking through the last release vs 'next' branch race with Alfredo 
I think (?) we've established that it is a non-issue.  If a release build 
races with a branch update it shows up as a merge commit in the history 
(just like a regular 'git pull').

Unless we're specifically concerned about things landing in dumpling (or 
whatever) just prior to a release?

sage

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5027 bytes --]

Hi,

That's too much information for me to digest quickly. Instead of stalling I will go ahead and merge the dumpling pull requests into the dumpling branch so that Yuri can proceed. And I'll take time to revise my understanding of the backport workflow with your input.

Cheers

On 10/02/2015 19:37, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/02/2015 18:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>>> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>>>> Loic,
>>>>>
>>>>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
>>>>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.
>>>>
>>>> Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge.  I do see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if you insist.  Does my reasoning make sense?  Please advice, how we should proceed.
>>>
>>> The dumpling-backports branch currently is at
>>>
>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>>
>>> after a successful test run from QE and a merge into dumpling, the dumpling branch will be at
>>>
>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>>
>>> as well. In other words they are identical and there is no point in running a test again. The only reason why they could be different is if a commit is inadvertently added to the dumpling branch while testing happens on the dumpling-backport branc. In this case the presence of this new commit would be reason enough to run another round of test indeed. So the process could be:
>>>
>>> If tests are ok and merge can fast forward, then release.
>>> If tests are ok and merge cannot fast forward, send back to loic because a commit was added by accident and needs to be approved by the leads.
>>>
>>> If testing happens on the dumpling branch, adding a commit to the dumpling branch would have side effects that could taint the results of the tests or, even worse, go unnoticed. There is zero chance that someone adds a commit to the dumpling-backports branch and that gives us something stable. On the contrary, the odds that someone adds a commit to the dumpling branch are high, specially if the tests take a few weeks to complete.
>>>
>>> As Greg mentioned, merging in dumpling does not matter much for this round because it is what has been done in the past. And to be honest, I would not mind if an additional commit taints the process by accident. However, unless there is a reason not to, it would be good to establish a process that is solid if we can.
>>>
>>> I've witnessed Alfredo's pain on each release and an additional benefit of having a dumpling-backports branch that nobody tampers with just occured to me. When and if QE finds that dumpling-backports is fit for release, instead of merging it into dumpling it could be handed over to Alfredo for release. And he would be able to proceed knowing it is stable and won't be moving forward. Once the release is done and the tag set to the proper commit, the dumpling branch can be reset to dumpling-backports. If commits were added during the process, their authors could be notified that they were discarded and need to be merge again. That would not work for the master branch but it would definitely be possible for the stable branches because such "out of process" commits are rarely added.
>>>
>>> I've not thought this through, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea of using dumpling-backports as a staging area until the release is final.
>>
>> What's the purpose of even having a dumpling branch at that point?
>> We're not using it for anything under your model.
> 
> Yeah, it seems to me like the same general process we use for 'next' and 
> 'master' would work here:
> 
>  - prepare a batch of backports, say dumpling-rgw-next
>  - run it through the rgw suite
>  - if that is okay, merge to dumpling
>  - run regular tests on dumpling (all suites)
> 
> so that dumpling acts as in integration branch the same way the others do.   
> This is reasonably lightweight on process and means that our periodic 
> scheduled runs are doing double duty for the integration testing and 
> catching long-tail bugs.
> 
> After talking through the last release vs 'next' branch race with Alfredo 
> I think (?) we've established that it is a non-issue.  If a release build 
> races with a branch update it shows up as a merge commit in the history 
> (just like a regular 'git pull').
> 
> Unless we're specifically concerned about things landing in dumpling (or 
> whatever) just prior to a release?
> 
> sage
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Yuri Weinstein]

Great!

As soon as it's merged I will schedule suite to run as listed somewhere below ...

dumpling with higher priority and then giant.

Thx
YuriW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Sage Weil" <sage@newdream.net>, "Gregory Farnum" <greg@gregs42.com>
Cc: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>, "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:06:43 AM
Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

Hi,

That's too much information for me to digest quickly. Instead of stalling I will go ahead and merge the dumpling pull requests into the dumpling branch so that Yuri can proceed. And I'll take time to revise my understanding of the backport workflow with your input.

Cheers

On 10/02/2015 19:37, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/02/2015 18:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>>> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>>>> Loic,
>>>>>
>>>>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
>>>>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.
>>>>
>>>> Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge.  I do see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if you insist.  Does my reasoning make sense?  Please advice, how we should proceed.
>>>
>>> The dumpling-backports branch currently is at
>>>
>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>>
>>> after a successful test run from QE and a merge into dumpling, the dumpling branch will be at
>>>
>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>>
>>> as well. In other words they are identical and there is no point in running a test again. The only reason why they could be different is if a commit is inadvertently added to the dumpling branch while testing happens on the dumpling-backport branc. In this case the presence of this new commit would be reason enough to run another round of test indeed. So the process could be:
>>>
>>> If tests are ok and merge can fast forward, then release.
>>> If tests are ok and merge cannot fast forward, send back to loic because a commit was added by accident and needs to be approved by the leads.
>>>
>>> If testing happens on the dumpling branch, adding a commit to the dumpling branch would have side effects that could taint the results of the tests or, even worse, go unnoticed. There is zero chance that someone adds a commit to the dumpling-backports branch and that gives us something stable. On the contrary, the odds that someone adds a commit to the dumpling branch are high, specially if the tests take a few weeks to complete.
>>>
>>> As Greg mentioned, merging in dumpling does not matter much for this round because it is what has been done in the past. And to be honest, I would not mind if an additional commit taints the process by accident. However, unless there is a reason not to, it would be good to establish a process that is solid if we can.
>>>
>>> I've witnessed Alfredo's pain on each release and an additional benefit of having a dumpling-backports branch that nobody tampers with just occured to me. When and if QE finds that dumpling-backports is fit for release, instead of merging it into dumpling it could be handed over to Alfredo for release. And he would be able to proceed knowing it is stable and won't be moving forward. Once the release is done and the tag set to the proper commit, the dumpling branch can be reset to dumpling-backports. If commits were added during the process, their authors could be notified that they were discarded and need to be merge again. That would not work for the master branch but it would definitely be possible for the stable branches because such "out of process" commits are rarely added.
>>>
>>> I've not thought this through, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea of using dumpling-backports as a staging area until the release is final.
>>
>> What's the purpose of even having a dumpling branch at that point?
>> We're not using it for anything under your model.
> 
> Yeah, it seems to me like the same general process we use for 'next' and 
> 'master' would work here:
> 
>  - prepare a batch of backports, say dumpling-rgw-next
>  - run it through the rgw suite
>  - if that is okay, merge to dumpling
>  - run regular tests on dumpling (all suites)
> 
> so that dumpling acts as in integration branch the same way the others do.   
> This is reasonably lightweight on process and means that our periodic 
> scheduled runs are doing double duty for the integration testing and 
> catching long-tail bugs.
> 
> After talking through the last release vs 'next' branch race with Alfredo 
> I think (?) we've established that it is a non-issue.  If a release build 
> races with a branch update it shows up as a merge commit in the history 
> (just like a regular 'git pull').
> 
> Unless we're specifically concerned about things landing in dumpling (or 
> whatever) just prior to a release?
> 
> sage
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5956 bytes --]

Hi,

The dumpling branch now contains the commits that were in the dumpling-backports branch, they have been merged.

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/77dfbbaccfb5074899d02314a26cb9ac46a69106

is the head of the dumpling branch I'm refering to.

Cheers

On 10/02/2015 20:11, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> Great!
> 
> As soon as it's merged I will schedule suite to run as listed somewhere below ...
> 
> dumpling with higher priority and then giant.
> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Sage Weil" <sage@newdream.net>, "Gregory Farnum" <greg@gregs42.com>
> Cc: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>, "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:06:43 AM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That's too much information for me to digest quickly. Instead of stalling I will go ahead and merge the dumpling pull requests into the dumpling branch so that Yuri can proceed. And I'll take time to revise my understanding of the backport workflow with your input.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On 10/02/2015 19:37, Sage Weil wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/02/2015 18:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>>>> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>>>>>> Loic,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
>>>>>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge.  I do see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if you insist.  Does my reasoning make sense?  Please advice, how we should proceed.
>>>>
>>>> The dumpling-backports branch currently is at
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>>>
>>>> after a successful test run from QE and a merge into dumpling, the dumpling branch will be at
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>>>
>>>> as well. In other words they are identical and there is no point in running a test again. The only reason why they could be different is if a commit is inadvertently added to the dumpling branch while testing happens on the dumpling-backport branc. In this case the presence of this new commit would be reason enough to run another round of test indeed. So the process could be:
>>>>
>>>> If tests are ok and merge can fast forward, then release.
>>>> If tests are ok and merge cannot fast forward, send back to loic because a commit was added by accident and needs to be approved by the leads.
>>>>
>>>> If testing happens on the dumpling branch, adding a commit to the dumpling branch would have side effects that could taint the results of the tests or, even worse, go unnoticed. There is zero chance that someone adds a commit to the dumpling-backports branch and that gives us something stable. On the contrary, the odds that someone adds a commit to the dumpling branch are high, specially if the tests take a few weeks to complete.
>>>>
>>>> As Greg mentioned, merging in dumpling does not matter much for this round because it is what has been done in the past. And to be honest, I would not mind if an additional commit taints the process by accident. However, unless there is a reason not to, it would be good to establish a process that is solid if we can.
>>>>
>>>> I've witnessed Alfredo's pain on each release and an additional benefit of having a dumpling-backports branch that nobody tampers with just occured to me. When and if QE finds that dumpling-backports is fit for release, instead of merging it into dumpling it could be handed over to Alfredo for release. And he would be able to proceed knowing it is stable and won't be moving forward. Once the release is done and the tag set to the proper commit, the dumpling branch can be reset to dumpling-backports. If commits were added during the process, their authors could be notified that they were discarded and need to be merge again. That would not work for the master branch but it would definitely be possible for the stable branches because such "out of process" commits are rarely added.
>>>>
>>>> I've not thought this through, but the more I think about it the more I like the idea of using dumpling-backports as a staging area until the release is final.
>>>
>>> What's the purpose of even having a dumpling branch at that point?
>>> We're not using it for anything under your model.
>>
>> Yeah, it seems to me like the same general process we use for 'next' and 
>> 'master' would work here:
>>
>>  - prepare a batch of backports, say dumpling-rgw-next
>>  - run it through the rgw suite
>>  - if that is okay, merge to dumpling
>>  - run regular tests on dumpling (all suites)
>>
>> so that dumpling acts as in integration branch the same way the others do.   
>> This is reasonably lightweight on process and means that our periodic 
>> scheduled runs are doing double duty for the integration testing and 
>> catching long-tail bugs.
>>
>> After talking through the last release vs 'next' branch race with Alfredo 
>> I think (?) we've established that it is a non-issue.  If a release build 
>> races with a branch update it shows up as a merge commit in the history 
>> (just like a regular 'git pull').
>>
>> Unless we're specifically concerned about things landing in dumpling (or 
>> whatever) just prior to a release?
>>
>> sage
>>
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Gregory Farnum]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:>
>> Loic,
>>
>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs dumpling-backports first - is time.
>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway.
>
> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will be exactly the same.

"Ship what you test." :) That definitely needs to happen.

I don't have a dog in this, but given our historic usage patterns and
the testing it's already gone through I think it's probably fine to do
the merge and then final testing.
-Greg

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Yuri Weinstein]

I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.

The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).

upgrade:dumpling
================
['45493']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
"Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"

*** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.

['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
"s3tests failed"

*** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.

fs
================
All green !

rados
================
['45054']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
"Issued certificate has expired" 
*** Sandon pls comment.

['45168', '45169']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
*** Sam - pls comment

['45215']
Missing packages - no ticket FYI
"Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"

*** Zack, Sandon ?

ceph-deploy
================

Travis - pls suggest
In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?

rbd
================
['45365', '45366', '45367']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
"unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"

['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
"error: image still has watchers" 
(duplicate of 10680)

*** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. 

rgw
================
['45382', '45390']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
"s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838

*** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?

I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.

Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?

Thx
YuriW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

Hi Yuri,

The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 

For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410

I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.

Cheers

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4136 bytes --]



On 11/02/2015 23:24, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.
> 
> The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).
> 
> upgrade:dumpling
> ================
> ['45493']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
> "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"
> 
> *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.
> 
> ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
> "s3tests failed"
> 
> *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.
> 
> fs
> ================
> All green !
> 
> rados
> ================
> ['45054']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
> "Issued certificate has expired" 
> *** Sandon pls comment.
> 
> ['45168', '45169']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
> coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
> *** Sam - pls comment
> 
> ['45215']
> Missing packages - no ticket FYI
> "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"
> 
> *** Zack, Sandon ?
> 
> ceph-deploy
> ================
> 
> Travis - pls suggest
> In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?
> 
> rbd
> ================
> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
> 
> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
> "error: image still has watchers" 
> (duplicate of 10680)
> 
> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. 
> 
> rgw
> ================
> ['45382', '45390']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
> "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838
> 
> *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?
> 
> I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.
> 
> Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.

At the moment I have nothing.

> PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?

If that's ok with you I'd rather check the tickets that you re-opened or filed at the end of the tests, all at once (just make sure such tickets have the backport field mentionning "dumpling" or I may miss them). However, if you need my input on a specific ticket feel free to ask.

Thanks !

> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> Hi Yuri,
> 
> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
> 
> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
> 
> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
> 
> Cheers
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Josh Durgin]

On 02/11/2015 02:24 PM, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> rbd
> ================
> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
>
> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
> "error: image still has watchers"
> (duplicate of 10680)
>
> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment.

Looks good to me.

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Yuri Weinstein]

I linked all issues related to this release testing to the ticket http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560

After the team leads make a call of those, including environment issues, I suggest re-running suites the failed again.

Loic, I'd re-run them in the Octo, since we already started there, if you agree ?

Thx
YuriW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:24:33 PM
Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.

The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).

upgrade:dumpling
================
['45493']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
"Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"

*** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.

['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
"s3tests failed"

*** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.

fs
================
All green !

rados
================
['45054']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
"Issued certificate has expired" 
*** Sandon pls comment.

['45168', '45169']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
*** Sam - pls comment

['45215']
Missing packages - no ticket FYI
"Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"

*** Zack, Sandon ?

ceph-deploy
================

Travis - pls suggest
In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?

rbd
================
['45365', '45366', '45367']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
"unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"

['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
"error: image still has watchers" 
(duplicate of 10680)

*** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. 

rgw
================
['45382', '45390']
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
"s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838

*** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?

I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.

Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?

Thx
YuriW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

Hi Yuri,

The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 

For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410

I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.

Cheers

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4538 bytes --]



On 12/02/2015 23:06, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> I linked all issues related to this release testing to the ticket http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
> 
> After the team leads make a call of those, including environment issues, I suggest re-running suites the failed again.
> 
> Loic, I'd re-run them in the Octo, since we already started there, if you agree ?

Sure :-)

> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:24:33 PM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.
> 
> The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).
> 
> upgrade:dumpling
> ================
> ['45493']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
> "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"
> 
> *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.
> 
> ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
> "s3tests failed"
> 
> *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.
> 
> fs
> ================
> All green !
> 
> rados
> ================
> ['45054']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
> "Issued certificate has expired" 
> *** Sandon pls comment.
> 
> ['45168', '45169']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
> coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
> *** Sam - pls comment
> 
> ['45215']
> Missing packages - no ticket FYI
> "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"
> 
> *** Zack, Sandon ?
> 
> ceph-deploy
> ================
> 
> Travis - pls suggest
> In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?
> 
> rbd
> ================
> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
> 
> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
> "error: image still has watchers" 
> (duplicate of 10680)
> 
> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. 
> 
> rgw
> ================
> ['45382', '45390']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
> "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838
> 
> *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?
> 
> I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.
> 
> Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
> PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?
> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> Hi Yuri,
> 
> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
> 
> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
> 
> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
> 
> Cheers
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Yuri Weinstein]

Hi all

I updated all issues in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560

Based on what is listed there, we have 
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10801 - Yehuda pls comment
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Sam pls re-confirm

rbd - Josh, I understood that we are good to go, pls re-confirm.

I can re-run some suites if you'd like and we can make a call on this release.

Loic - back to you, let me know what you think.

Thx
YuriW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>, "Zack Cerza" <zack@redhat.com>, "Sandon Van Ness" <svanness@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:17:49 PM
Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE



On 12/02/2015 23:06, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> I linked all issues related to this release testing to the ticket http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
> 
> After the team leads make a call of those, including environment issues, I suggest re-running suites the failed again.
> 
> Loic, I'd re-run them in the Octo, since we already started there, if you agree ?

Sure :-)

> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:24:33 PM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.
> 
> The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).
> 
> upgrade:dumpling
> ================
> ['45493']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
> "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"
> 
> *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.
> 
> ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
> "s3tests failed"
> 
> *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.
> 
> fs
> ================
> All green !
> 
> rados
> ================
> ['45054']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
> "Issued certificate has expired" 
> *** Sandon pls comment.
> 
> ['45168', '45169']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
> coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
> *** Sam - pls comment
> 
> ['45215']
> Missing packages - no ticket FYI
> "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"
> 
> *** Zack, Sandon ?
> 
> ceph-deploy
> ================
> 
> Travis - pls suggest
> In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?
> 
> rbd
> ================
> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
> 
> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
> "error: image still has watchers" 
> (duplicate of 10680)
> 
> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. 
> 
> rgw
> ================
> ['45382', '45390']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
> "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838
> 
> *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?
> 
> I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.
> 
> Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
> PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?
> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> Hi Yuri,
> 
> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
> 
> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
> 
> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
> 
> Cheers
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Samuel Just]

Yup, 10694 is a known bug in dumpling which we probably don't want to
fix.  The rados tests look ok to me I think.
-Sam

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I updated all issues in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
>
> Based on what is listed there, we have
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10801 - Yehuda pls comment
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Sam pls re-confirm
>
> rbd - Josh, I understood that we are good to go, pls re-confirm.
>
> I can re-run some suites if you'd like and we can make a call on this release.
>
> Loic - back to you, let me know what you think.
>
> Thx
> YuriW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>, "Zack Cerza" <zack@redhat.com>, "Sandon Van Ness" <svanness@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:17:49 PM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>
>
>
> On 12/02/2015 23:06, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
>> I linked all issues related to this release testing to the ticket http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
>>
>> After the team leads make a call of those, including environment issues, I suggest re-running suites the failed again.
>>
>> Loic, I'd re-run them in the Octo, since we already started there, if you agree ?
>
> Sure :-)
>
>>
>> Thx
>> YuriW
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
>> To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
>> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:24:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>>
>> I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.
>>
>> The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).
>>
>> upgrade:dumpling
>> ================
>> ['45493']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
>> "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"
>>
>> *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.
>>
>> ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
>> "s3tests failed"
>>
>> *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.
>>
>> fs
>> ================
>> All green !
>>
>> rados
>> ================
>> ['45054']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
>> "Issued certificate has expired"
>> *** Sandon pls comment.
>>
>> ['45168', '45169']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
>> coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
>> *** Sam - pls comment
>>
>> ['45215']
>> Missing packages - no ticket FYI
>> "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"
>>
>> *** Zack, Sandon ?
>>
>> ceph-deploy
>> ================
>>
>> Travis - pls suggest
>> In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?
>>
>> rbd
>> ================
>> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
>> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
>>
>> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
>> "error: image still has watchers"
>> (duplicate of 10680)
>>
>> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment.
>>
>> rgw
>> ================
>> ['45382', '45390']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
>> "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838
>>
>> *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?
>>
>> I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.
>>
>> Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
>> PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?
>>
>> Thx
>> YuriW
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
>> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
>> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>>
>> Hi Yuri,
>>
>> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE.
>>
>> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>
>> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5699 bytes --]



On 18/02/2015 18:38, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I updated all issues in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
> 
> Based on what is listed there, we have 
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10801 - Yehuda pls comment
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Sam pls re-confirm
> 
> rbd - Josh, I understood that we are good to go, pls re-confirm.
> 
> I can re-run some suites if you'd like and we can make a call on this release.
> 
> Loic - back to you, let me know what you think.

As long as you're satisfied with the test results, I have no further comment :-)

Cheers

> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>, "Zack Cerza" <zack@redhat.com>, "Sandon Van Ness" <svanness@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:17:49 PM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/02/2015 23:06, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
>> I linked all issues related to this release testing to the ticket http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
>>
>> After the team leads make a call of those, including environment issues, I suggest re-running suites the failed again.
>>
>> Loic, I'd re-run them in the Octo, since we already started there, if you agree ?
> 
> Sure :-)
> 
>>
>> Thx
>> YuriW
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
>> To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
>> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:24:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>>
>> I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.
>>
>> The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).
>>
>> upgrade:dumpling
>> ================
>> ['45493']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
>> "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"
>>
>> *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.
>>
>> ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
>> "s3tests failed"
>>
>> *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.
>>
>> fs
>> ================
>> All green !
>>
>> rados
>> ================
>> ['45054']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
>> "Issued certificate has expired" 
>> *** Sandon pls comment.
>>
>> ['45168', '45169']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
>> coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
>> *** Sam - pls comment
>>
>> ['45215']
>> Missing packages - no ticket FYI
>> "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"
>>
>> *** Zack, Sandon ?
>>
>> ceph-deploy
>> ================
>>
>> Travis - pls suggest
>> In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?
>>
>> rbd
>> ================
>> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
>> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
>>
>> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
>> "error: image still has watchers" 
>> (duplicate of 10680)
>>
>> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. 
>>
>> rgw
>> ================
>> ['45382', '45390']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
>> "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838
>>
>> *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?
>>
>> I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.
>>
>> Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
>> PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?
>>
>> Thx
>> YuriW
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
>> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
>> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>>
>> Hi Yuri,
>>
>> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
>>
>> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>
>> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Josh Durgin]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:56:14 AM
Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE



On 18/02/2015 18:38, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I updated all issues in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
> 
> Based on what is listed there, we have 
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10801 - Yehuda pls comment
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Sam pls re-confirm
> 
> rbd - Josh, I understood that we are good to go, pls re-confirm.

Yes, good to go from my perspective.

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Yuri Weinstein]

All issues in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560 updated.

Loic - #10801 can be resolved.

v0.67.12 ready for release.

Thx
YuriW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>, "Zack Cerza" <zack@redhat.com>, "Sandon Van Ness" <svanness@redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:38:19 AM
Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

Hi all

I updated all issues in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560

Based on what is listed there, we have 
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10801 - Yehuda pls comment
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Sam pls re-confirm

rbd - Josh, I understood that we are good to go, pls re-confirm.

I can re-run some suites if you'd like and we can make a call on this release.

Loic - back to you, let me know what you think.

Thx
YuriW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>, "Zack Cerza" <zack@redhat.com>, "Sandon Van Ness" <svanness@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:17:49 PM
Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE



On 12/02/2015 23:06, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> I linked all issues related to this release testing to the ticket http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
> 
> After the team leads make a call of those, including environment issues, I suggest re-running suites the failed again.
> 
> Loic, I'd re-run them in the Octo, since we already started there, if you agree ?

Sure :-)

> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:24:33 PM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.
> 
> The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).
> 
> upgrade:dumpling
> ================
> ['45493']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
> "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"
> 
> *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.
> 
> ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
> "s3tests failed"
> 
> *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.
> 
> fs
> ================
> All green !
> 
> rados
> ================
> ['45054']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
> "Issued certificate has expired" 
> *** Sandon pls comment.
> 
> ['45168', '45169']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
> coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
> *** Sam - pls comment
> 
> ['45215']
> Missing packages - no ticket FYI
> "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"
> 
> *** Zack, Sandon ?
> 
> ceph-deploy
> ================
> 
> Travis - pls suggest
> In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?
> 
> rbd
> ================
> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
> 
> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
> "error: image still has watchers" 
> (duplicate of 10680)
> 
> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. 
> 
> rgw
> ================
> ['45382', '45390']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
> "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838
> 
> *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?
> 
> I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.
> 
> Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
> PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?
> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> Hi Yuri,
> 
> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
> 
> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
> 
> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
> 
> Cheers
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6248 bytes --]



On 26/02/2015 01:18, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> All issues in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560 updated.
> 
> Loic - #10801 can be resolved.

Nice, thanks for the update !

> 
> v0.67.12 ready for release.
> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>, "Zack Cerza" <zack@redhat.com>, "Sandon Van Ness" <svanness@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:38:19 AM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I updated all issues in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
> 
> Based on what is listed there, we have 
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10801 - Yehuda pls comment
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Sam pls re-confirm
> 
> rbd - Josh, I understood that we are good to go, pls re-confirm.
> 
> I can re-run some suites if you'd like and we can make a call on this release.
> 
> Loic - back to you, let me know what you think.
> 
> Thx
> YuriW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>, "Zack Cerza" <zack@redhat.com>, "Sandon Van Ness" <svanness@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:17:49 PM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/02/2015 23:06, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
>> I linked all issues related to this release testing to the ticket http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
>>
>> After the team leads make a call of those, including environment issues, I suggest re-running suites the failed again.
>>
>> Loic, I'd re-run them in the Octo, since we already started there, if you agree ?
> 
> Sure :-)
> 
>>
>> Thx
>> YuriW
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
>> To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
>> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:24:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>>
>> I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.
>>
>> The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).
>>
>> upgrade:dumpling
>> ================
>> ['45493']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
>> "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"
>>
>> *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.
>>
>> ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
>> "s3tests failed"
>>
>> *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.
>>
>> fs
>> ================
>> All green !
>>
>> rados
>> ================
>> ['45054']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
>> "Issued certificate has expired" 
>> *** Sandon pls comment.
>>
>> ['45168', '45169']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
>> coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
>> *** Sam - pls comment
>>
>> ['45215']
>> Missing packages - no ticket FYI
>> "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"
>>
>> *** Zack, Sandon ?
>>
>> ceph-deploy
>> ================
>>
>> Travis - pls suggest
>> In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?
>>
>> rbd
>> ================
>> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
>> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
>>
>> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
>> "error: image still has watchers" 
>> (duplicate of 10680)
>>
>> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. 
>>
>> rgw
>> ================
>> ['45382', '45390']
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
>> "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838
>>
>> *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?
>>
>> I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.
>>
>> Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
>> PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?
>>
>> Thx
>> YuriW
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
>> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
>> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>>
>> Hi Yuri,
>>
>> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. 
>>
>> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>>
>> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE

[Samuel Just]

Yeah, the rados run had too much environmental noise to be useful.
-Sam

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
> I linked all issues related to this release testing to the ticket http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10560
>
> After the team leads make a call of those, including environment issues, I suggest re-running suites the failed again.
>
> Loic, I'd re-run them in the Octo, since we already started there, if you agree ?
>
> Thx
> YuriW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> To: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "Sage Weil" <sage@redhat.com>, "Tamil Muthamizhan" <tmuthami@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:24:33 PM
> Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>
> I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status.
>
> The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects).
>
> upgrade:dumpling
> ================
> ['45493']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix"
> "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)"
>
> *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status.
>
> ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838
> "s3tests failed"
>
> *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests.
>
> fs
> ================
> All green !
>
> rados
> ================
> ['45054']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841
> "Issued certificate has expired"
> *** Sandon pls comment.
>
> ['45168', '45169']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840
> coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence"
> *** Sam - pls comment
>
> ['45215']
> Missing packages - no ticket FYI
> "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages  Hash Sum mismatch"
>
> *** Zack, Sandon ?
>
> ceph-deploy
> ================
>
> Travis - pls suggest
> In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage?
>
> rbd
> ================
> ['45365', '45366', '45367']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842
> "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com"
>
> ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802
> "error: image still has watchers"
> (duplicate of 10680)
>
> *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment.
>
> rgw
> ================
> ['45382', '45390']
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843
> "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838
>
> *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades?
>
> I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps.
>
> Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here.
> PS:  I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a?
>
> Thx
> YuriW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM
> Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE
>
> Hi Yuri,
>
> The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE.
>
> For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410
>
> I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html